It certainly a masterpiece of aeronautical engineering just too BIG for its time. The fuel burn was phenomenal. Pilots barking at controllers to Hurry up because tons of fuel were wasted on clogged tarmacs with These whales. Listen to the pilot and tower exchanges in New York.

I knew that when Airbus said the breakeven point was 120 units sold, that was wishful thinking. Also, foregoing a cargo version was a huge mistake as well. When FedEx and UPS ordered 777F & 747-8F units respectively, the handwriting was on the wall. I saw a Korean Air A380 being pushed back at ATL, and they had to hold ground traffic for it. There is such a parameter as being TOO big. Many have said the 747 is the "sweet spot" for large-size airliners. Witness Boeing producing the 777X with folding wingtips to fit existing large airliner gates!

The "handwriting was on the wall" when they announced they were upping the a350 production rate but didn't really admit it was on idle a380 production lines. As for the financials, review the stock performance for BA vs. EASDF. Brought to you by the same folks, basically, that produced the spectacularly performing but spectacular fail that was Concorde. The historic time in service in 121 ops. may be similiar as the previously unheard of point to point routes and ETOPS negate the luxury of sir tim's sand box and $50.00 oil neuters the subsidies that made it all happen. As for freight, an airplane that can go anywhere, but can't land anywhere. History, not a mystery.

If it is essential sales wouldn't be dropping. Planes like the 787 have done more to alleviate traffic at traffic constricted airports by being profitable flying to less congested airports. Consequently dropping 380 orders in favor of a more profitable 350. Profitability per seat mile works on a full passenger load but if half the season its only running a 50% load factor things go downhill fast. On the other hand many have said they will only fly overseas on planes with 4 burning so when the 340, 380, and 747 are gone what will be the recourse.

It's been coming for a while. Large four engine passenger aircraft are the past not the future. The A380 will most likely be replaced by the Boeing 777X or similar twin engine types. The only thing that has kept the Boeing 747-800 afloat is that they offer a cargo variant.

I doubt too many people will actually lose jobs. The A380 line at Toulouse is only a few yards from the line that assembles the A330, and the A320 (which has a backlog will over a thousand) The suppliers will also not see a dramatic change, as they supply multiple assembly lines across Airbus (and Boeing) Messier-Bugatti supplies several brands, as does Rolls-Royce, Goodrich Aerospace, Shorts, SABCA, etc. Hundreds of thousands out of work, only if Airbus as a whole goes {tango-uniform}. Just as Renton shifted jobs around when the B757 ended in 2004, Airbus will shift the work force around and make it work. There will be opportunities for just about everyone.

"Airbus will start discussions with its social partners in the next few weeks regarding the 3,000 to 3,500 positions potentially impacted over the next three years. However, the ongoing A320 ramp-up and the new widebody order from Emirates Airline will offer a significant number of internal mobility opportunities."

So, everything depend on how much "too many people" and "significant number" are.

That's actually not too bad if you consider how much money Boeing lost on the 787 program -- an estimated $15 billion on the initial design and another $30 billion building the first 500 airframes. The money they make now just pays down those losees.

Never another 4 engine passenger plant for world travel, only two engines are being built so get ready for some white knuckle time if your over the north Atlantic and one engine goes out and listen when the flight attendant tells you your seat cushion can be used as a float.

The Dual Engine ER designated aircraft are able to operate on one engine and maintain flight level. Originally the rule was more than 2 engines were required and approved by IATA ICAO for transatlantic or transpacific flights. Originally it was the 747, but then Lockheed came out with the L10 11 (tristar) the one with the engine in the tail and McDonnell Douglas DC10 was the other (tristar) but then after a decade the IATA ICAO allowed the manufacturers and airlines to conduct tests and submit data for the prior 15 years and it was found that with the right engine a normal plane could travel on a single engine to it's destination. Normally they just divert to the closest land airport

You cannot fly empty space sometimes dark empty space are failures at generating revenue. But it had its moments in the sun. I suspect they will end their days in cargo fleets. Better than withering away at Davis Monthan AFB if the It are not chopped into expensive dog food cans first.

Back @ 2000 Boeing made a conscious decision that airlines in the future would be more inclined to buy aircraft that were highly economical in point to point routs and less interested in the long standing hub and spoke system. Airbus made the calculated decision the opposite would be true. Time has proved that Boeing's 787 was the right decision. Lastly Boeing's futuristic construction materials and techniques are now the industry's top standard.

It was also because hub and spoke was not as effective as it once was. Hubs like ORD, DFW, CLT, PHL, BOS, MSP are all fine but most are capacity controlled so any weather incident of any magnitude and flights immediately are cancelled and worse the weather the cancelations skyrocket. but the aircraft that are stuck at the hub also end up having the flights they were going to operate cancelled too. Think PSA with their system issues put AA to a standstill in CLT for 5 days. DL ground to a halt 2 years ago when a electrical fire resulted in ATL going dark for over a day. I got the joy of spending 2 days in IAH about a decade ago when a tropical storm went through and flooded all the roadways into and out of the airport making pilots, etc unable to get to the airport from Friday night to Sunday mid day. Southwest does a modified point to point circuit. Where one aircraft goes from city A to B to C to D next day to E to F to G to H next day I to J to K to L to A Since the aircraft don't all go to the same cities if a airport is closed it has a less drastic impact on ops. than the airline that goes a to b to a to b to a to b to a (which is what UA and AA frequently do)

no market there, the market said so years ago with the 380f and AB cancelled it for scant orders. too expensive to operate vis. a vis. the 74, 75, 76, and 77 competition as well as the 330f et.al.. Might make a good small concert hall though.

I don't think the A380 uses any standard containers. What I really wondered is why Airbus didn't make the lower deck for cargo, and the upper deck for passenger travel. They would have the ability to sell to a larger market if it was a dual use. Currently carriers like Alaska operate aircraft where the front of the cabin (1/3 to 1/2) is cargo and the back of the plane is passengers.

This is one of those that I saw coming from the far distance. Yes the A380 was big, and allowed airlines to create one of a kind travel experiences. But, after the first few years the shine wore off and paying 4 to 8 X the cost of a business class seat was hard for most travelers, even though with the ability to pay it, to accept the value in it. It's why Emirates was the only real airline buying the jets, but with the lifespan of a jet expected to be 20 or so years the orders quickly disappeared. Size & Weight kept it out of a large number of airports either because of the air displacement resulting in a elongated following distance because of wake turb. But a large number of airports didn't want to put out the money to bring the A380 in. Having to reconfigure taxiways, gates, replace areas the plane would roll over with highly reinforced versions of concrete so the aircraft could maneuver without damaging the travel surfaces. Even with the reinforcements the ports that have the A380 report a faster decay to the travel surfaces due to the increased weight stress on them. A few airports revoked the landing rights of it due to the increased cost of travel surfaces. The 777X is substantially larger than the 777-4 but Boeing made accommodations so that if an airport was accepting the 777-4 they wouldn't have to do anything for the 777x. Folding wingtips, composites to keep weights in check. etc all smart moves on their part.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-14/airbus-terminates-a380-superjumbo-program-as-emirates-cuts-order It's done. Airbus' biggest mistake has been laid to rest. Last plane rolls off in 2021. Carriers are already ordering A-350's and 777-X.

You cannot fly empty space sometimes dark empty space are failures at generating revenue. But it had its moments in the sun. I suspect they will end their days in cargo fleets. Better than withering away at Davis Monthan AFB if the It are not chopped into expensive dog food cans first.

I haven't read all the comments.Trying to top the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet was a gallant but costly effort .If Airbus was a solely owned company , like Boeing , and not backed by numerous countries It would go down like a lead balloon, Pun intended.

Let's face it ,you can only have one Queen at a time ,ours is still alive .